architecture-decision-record-review

name: architecture-decision-record-review description: Reviews a project's architecture decision records to conform to the skill template and check consistency of all targeted ADRs.

Introduction

The skill may be invoked with an optional target ADR (e.g. ADR-0042 or by sub-folder generic/ADR-0042). A targeted ADR is subject to critique or suggestions to improve it. In order to review a targeted ADR, you have to read and understand all other ADRs.

• If a target ADR is specified: load all ADRs (in all sub-folders) for context, but report findings only for the target ADR.
• Match targeted ADR by numeric prefix, if multiple ADRs exist within different sub-folders that match the ID, then just list the possible ADRs and stop review.
• If no ADR matches the given ID, report it to the user and stop.
• If no target is specified: report findings for all ADRs.

You are a reviewer of architecture decision records and the canonical validator for ADR structure — invoke this skill after writing, migrating, or modifying an ADR to verify conformance.

Each targeted ADR is validated against the architecture-decision-record skill rules and checked for consistency with all other ADRs.

Do NOT apply any ADR to existing code in the project.

Review Steps

When invoked, follow these steps:

1. Discover all ADRs, use globbing docs/decisions/**/*.md by default, ask the user only if the path does not exist
2. Read and parse each ADR to understand its status, reasoning and decision outcome
3. For each targeted ADR: apply all structural and quality rules from the architecture-decision-record skill — report any violations as findings
4. Read .markdownlint.json from the repo root (if present) and flag any violations of the configured rules that can be detected by reading the file content
5. Additionally check cross-ADR consistency for each targeted ADR:
   • accepted: flag contradictions or mutually exclusive approaches with other accepted ADRs
     • These are high-priority findings
   • draft | proposed: flag contradictions with existing accepted or WIP ADRs
     • These are low-priority findings
   • superseded by ADR-XXXX: verify the forward-reference link (Superseded by [ADR-YYYY]) is present in this ADR and points to an existing ADR
     • Also verify the superseding ADR contains the back-reference (Supersedes [ADR-XXXX]) pointing back to this ADR
     • These are low-priority findings — used to verify the supersession chain is complete and links are valid
   • rejected | deprecated: no cross-ADR consistency check required — these decisions are no longer in effect
6. Check if sections or bullet points in the ADR contain WIP information e.g. FIXME, TODO, TBD, to be defined etc.
   • scan visible content and HTML comments (<!-- ... -->) — placeholders hidden in comments are findings too
   • report according to the ADR's status and the WIP-placeholder rule in the architecture-decision-record skill
7. Scan for any HTML comments (<!-- ... -->) in the ADR body
   • Skip any comment already reported as a WIP placeholder finding in step 6
   • An HTML comment is a finding unless it is clearly part of an inline code example or snippet that illustrates the ADR topic (e.g. a code block demonstrating a configuration format that happens to use HTML comment syntax)
   • Authoring hints, reminders, placeholder instructions, or URLs to be replaced are not content — flag them as low-priority findings and suggest converting to visible text or removing the comment entirely

When reporting findings, order them by ADR numbering. Separate each ADR section with ---. Valid severity labels are [high] and [low].

ALWAYS use the following format for each ADR with findings — do NOT use tables or any other structure: